Chaos and the Kiddies Table

[Elvis Obama]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

 

[Auld Phart]

Not allowed to discuss politics in my youngest daughters house, it upsets her that other family members, (my wife and I, her sister and brother in law) disagree with what she believes, and whom she votes for.

Unfortunately, by not being able to discuss politics, my grandsons have spent their lives being brainwashed to follow in her footsteps.


She's a hard core Democrat.

 

[oldsoul]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[320 Years of History]

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

Well, from what I can tell, the Structured Debate Forum, or possibly the Bullring, may be the sub-forum areas that aim to be most nearly what you want. I imagine "what you want" is roughly akin to what in forensic debate is called "extemporaneous" speech. In extemp, a speaker, or here a writer, presents a well-organized and well-supported speech using current fact and opinion on a designated current event topic by using credible content from numerous sources.

In forensic competition, the quality of the debate is quite high, but then there are judges, and there are competitors who are interested in developing strong arguments and in adhering to the rules of civility as well as an underlying objective of debating with cognitive rigor. That is, they will make a thesis claim, provide factual evidence for it and "bring home" the argument with anecdotal warrants. (The following is excerpted from "Guide to Public Forum Debate.")

The quantity of arguments is less important than the quality of arguments, just as the quantity of evidence is less important than the quality of evidence. Thus we come to three important components of an argument: claim, evidence, and warrant.

A claim is a major argument made on either side of the resolution. On the resolution, “Resolved that NATO countries should have acted together in Iraq,” a claim could be that animosities would be reduced because one nation would not bear the brunt of the responsibility for the invasion. To prove this to be true, a debate must provide evidence, proving that the claim is valid. The debater chooses at least one type of evidence that will support the claim even when challenged. In the above example, much credible evidence exists that resistance is high because the United States for the most part acted alone.

Perhaps the most crucial component of argumentation is the warrant. Warrants connect the claim and its support, sometime obviously, sometime subtly. Warrants emerge from the total sum of our experiences and personal observations. Thus it is entirely possible that the debater and the judges have a different set of experiences.

The warrant for the claim used in the NATO example should connect the audience (judges) to the thesis, perhaps by making anecdotal comments about how everyone is much better satisfied when cooperation exists, whether among people or nations. On the other hand, the opposition can counter that forcing nations to cooperate with each other when that is not their wish alienates allies and ruins alliances. Turn the evidence against the debater and make the logical warrant that such a NATO policy for Iraq would have destroyed NATO, would have kept us operating in Iraq by ourselves, and would have destroyed the unity for future NATO missions.

Warrants provide believable reasons why a claim and evidence are true. That is why evidence without analysis can result in an assertion without substance and an argument lost. Arguments and evidence without warrants are seldom persuasive.​

So much of what is posted on USMB is poorly organized and therefore veers off topic, is offered with little to no credible support, and, in terms of the structure of an argument, consists of the warrant and/or some isolated and often childishly organized/emphasized set of (often unsubstantiated) facts that lack the strength of dialectical presentation. Indeed, quite often folks on USMB seem to be a of a mind that their opinion is somehow valid, because in their mind, "everyone is entitled to their opinion." Well, of course, everyone is not entitled to their opinion, which is precisely why kids are relegated to the "kiddies' table."

Unfortunately, a public forum such as USMB likely lacks the resources to exact the levels of control that judges and sponsors can in forensic competitions. One element of control has to do with who is permitted to participate in the debate, that is, the forum administration has an inherent need to attract participants; however, were they enforce strict guidelines such as those maintained in forensic competitions, many people simply wouldn't participate.

Of course, there is also the added challenges resulting from folks engaging on topics about which they know little or nothing, and bothering to gather no information that would alter their state of ignorance re: the topic at hand. That is exactly the state of children's awareness of the topics adults discuss and it's why they are sat at the kids' tables or admonished to be seen and not heard. Our only tool for abjuring the same in venues like USMB is the "ignore" feature. It's essentially the means by which individual members assign folks to the "kiddies' table." It's naturally not nearly as effective as the "kiddies' table" approach, but it's the best we can do.

 

[GaryDog]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

Maybe he said this, but he didn't live it. He and Adams parted ways for decades.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

Well, from what I can tell, the Structured Debate Forum, or possibly the Bullring, may be the sub-forum areas that aim to be most nearly what you want. I imagine "what you want" is roughly akin to what in forensic debate is called "extemporaneous" speech. In extemp, a speaker, or here a writer, presents a well-organized and well-supported speech using current fact and opinion on a designated current event topic by using credible content from numerous sources.

In forensic competition, the quality of the debate is quite high, but then there are judges, and there are competitors who are interested in developing strong arguments and in adhering to the rules of civility as well as an underlying objective of debating with cognitive rigor. That is, they will make a thesis claim, provide factual evidence for it and "bring home" the argument with anecdotal warrants. (The following is excerpted from "Guide to Public Forum Debate.")

The quantity of arguments is less important than the quality of arguments, just as the quantity of evidence is less important than the quality of evidence. Thus we come to three important components of an argument: claim, evidence, and warrant.

A claim is a major argument made on either side of the resolution. On the resolution, “Resolved that NATO countries should have acted together in Iraq,” a claim could be that animosities would be reduced because one nation would not bear the brunt of the responsibility for the invasion. To prove this to be true, a debate must provide evidence, proving that the claim is valid. The debater chooses at least one type of evidence that will support the claim even when challenged. In the above example, much credible evidence exists that resistance is high because the United States for the most part acted alone.

Perhaps the most crucial component of argumentation is the warrant. Warrants connect the claim and its support, sometime obviously, sometime subtly. Warrants emerge from the total sum of our experiences and personal observations. Thus it is entirely possible that the debater and the judges have a different set of experiences.

The warrant for the claim used in the NATO example should connect the audience (judges) to the thesis, perhaps by making anecdotal comments about how everyone is much better satisfied when cooperation exists, whether among people or nations. On the other hand, the opposition can counter that forcing nations to cooperate with each other when that is not their wish alienates allies and ruins alliances. Turn the evidence against the debater and make the logical warrant that such a NATO policy for Iraq would have destroyed NATO, would have kept us operating in Iraq by ourselves, and would have destroyed the unity for future NATO missions.

Warrants provide believable reasons why a claim and evidence are true. That is why evidence without analysis can result in an assertion without substance and an argument lost. Arguments and evidence without warrants are seldom persuasive.​

So much of what is posted on USMB is poorly organized and therefore veers off topic, is offered with little to no credible support, and, in terms of the structure of an argument, consists of the warrant and/or some isolated and often childishly organized/emphasized set of (often unsubstantiated) facts that lack the strength of dialectical presentation. Indeed, quite often folks on USMB seem to be a of a mind that their opinion is somehow valid, because in their mind, "everyone is entitled to their opinion." Well, of course, everyone is not entitled to their opinion, which is precisely why kids are relegated to the "kiddies' table."

Unfortunately, a public forum such as USMB likely lacks the resources to exact the levels of control that judges and sponsors can in forensic competitions. One element of control has to do with who is permitted to participate in the debate, that is, the forum administration has an inherent need to attract participants; however, were they enforce strict guidelines such as those maintained in forensic competitions, many people simply wouldn't participate.

Of course, there is also the added challenges resulting from folks engaging on topics about which they know little or nothing, and bothering to gather no information that would alter their state of ignorance re: the topic at hand. That is exactly the state of children's awareness of the topics adults discuss and it's why they are sat at the kids' tables or admonished to be seen and not heard. Our only tool for abjuring the same in venues like USMB is the "ignore" feature. It's essentially the means by which individual members assign folks to the "kiddies' table." It's naturally not nearly as effective as the "kiddies' table" approach, but it's the best we can do.

Unfortunately, a public forum such as USMB likely lacks the resources to exact the levels of control that judges and sponsors can in forensic competitions. One element of control has to do with who is permitted to participate in the debate, that is, the forum administration has an inherent need to attract participants; however, were they enforce strict guidelines such as those maintained in forensic competitions, many people simply wouldn't participate.

Of course, there is also the added challenges resulting from folks engaging on topics about which they know little or nothing, and bothering to gather no information that would alter their state of ignorance re: the topic at hand. That is exactly the state of children's awareness of the topics adults discuss and it's why they are sat at the kids' tables or admonished to be seen and not heard. Our only tool for abjuring the same in venues like USMB is the "ignore" feature. It's essentially the means by which individual members assign folks to the "kiddies' table." It's naturally not nearly as effective as the "kiddies' table" approach, but it's the best we can do.

Quantity over quality is a very strange way to approach conversation, no? Politicians are famous for using many words to say nothing. At least they do so for personal gain. Here the brainwashed advocate for their master's best interests without regard for their own. All they seek to do is yell at people. If there is an attempt to discuss Israeli/Palestinian issues, for example, it quickly devolves into a proxy war. There is no attempt to define problems and discuss possible solutions. There are merely people pretending to be Israel and people pretending to be Palestine, expressing their personal hatred for one another. Yawn.

You ban people from this subforum. That's how you establish the rules for real conversation. Zero tolerance for personal attacks. Zero tolerance for attempts to derail conversations. Moderators of debates or live public forums are tasked with keeping conversations on track. Requirement #1 is being able tor recognize the things which derail conversations. Requirement #2 is having the huevos to establish a zero-tolerance policy towards such behavior.

 

[Picaro]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

Maybe he said this, but he didn't live it. He and Adams parted ways for decades.

So, he wasn't flawless? There haven't been any perfect people, have there? What a strange cottage industry. De-legitimizing people because of personal character flaws. Gandhi was a perv! MLK was a serial adulterer! No, they were all merely flawed human beings.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

 

[Picaro]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

Good.

 

[sartre play]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

Well, from what I can tell, the Structured Debate Forum, or possibly the Bullring, may be the sub-forum areas that aim to be most nearly what you want. I imagine "what you want" is roughly akin to what in forensic debate is called "extemporaneous" speech. In extemp, a speaker, or here a writer, presents a well-organized and well-supported speech using current fact and opinion on a designated current event topic by using credible content from numerous sources.

In forensic competition, the quality of the debate is quite high, but then there are judges, and there are competitors who are interested in developing strong arguments and in adhering to the rules of civility as well as an underlying objective of debating with cognitive rigor. That is, they will make a thesis claim, provide factual evidence for it and "bring home" the argument with anecdotal warrants. (The following is excerpted from "Guide to Public Forum Debate.")

The quantity of arguments is less important than the quality of arguments, just as the quantity of evidence is less important than the quality of evidence. Thus we come to three important components of an argument: claim, evidence, and warrant.

A claim is a major argument made on either side of the resolution. On the resolution, “Resolved that NATO countries should have acted together in Iraq,” a claim could be that animosities would be reduced because one nation would not bear the brunt of the responsibility for the invasion. To prove this to be true, a debate must provide evidence, proving that the claim is valid. The debater chooses at least one type of evidence that will support the claim even when challenged. In the above example, much credible evidence exists that resistance is high because the United States for the most part acted alone.

Perhaps the most crucial component of argumentation is the warrant. Warrants connect the claim and its support, sometime obviously, sometime subtly. Warrants emerge from the total sum of our experiences and personal observations. Thus it is entirely possible that the debater and the judges have a different set of experiences.

The warrant for the claim used in the NATO example should connect the audience (judges) to the thesis, perhaps by making anecdotal comments about how everyone is much better satisfied when cooperation exists, whether among people or nations. On the other hand, the opposition can counter that forcing nations to cooperate with each other when that is not their wish alienates allies and ruins alliances. Turn the evidence against the debater and make the logical warrant that such a NATO policy for Iraq would have destroyed NATO, would have kept us operating in Iraq by ourselves, and would have destroyed the unity for future NATO missions.

Warrants provide believable reasons why a claim and evidence are true. That is why evidence without analysis can result in an assertion without substance and an argument lost. Arguments and evidence without warrants are seldom persuasive.​

So much of what is posted on USMB is poorly organized and therefore veers off topic, is offered with little to no credible support, and, in terms of the structure of an argument, consists of the warrant and/or some isolated and often childishly organized/emphasized set of (often unsubstantiated) facts that lack the strength of dialectical presentation. Indeed, quite often folks on USMB seem to be a of a mind that their opinion is somehow valid, because in their mind, "everyone is entitled to their opinion." Well, of course, everyone is not entitled to their opinion, which is precisely why kids are relegated to the "kiddies' table."

Unfortunately, a public forum such as USMB likely lacks the resources to exact the levels of control that judges and sponsors can in forensic competitions. One element of control has to do with who is permitted to participate in the debate, that is, the forum administration has an inherent need to attract participants; however, were they enforce strict guidelines such as those maintained in forensic competitions, many people simply wouldn't participate.

Of course, there is also the added challenges resulting from folks engaging on topics about which they know little or nothing, and bothering to gather no information that would alter their state of ignorance re: the topic at hand. That is exactly the state of children's awareness of the topics adults discuss and it's why they are sat at the kids' tables or admonished to be seen and not heard. Our only tool for abjuring the same in venues like USMB is the "ignore" feature. It's essentially the means by which individual members assign folks to the "kiddies' table." It's naturally not nearly as effective as the "kiddies' table" approach, but it's the best we can do.

Unfortunately, a public forum such as USMB likely lacks the resources to exact the levels of control that judges and sponsors can in forensic competitions. One element of control has to do with who is permitted to participate in the debate, that is, the forum administration has an inherent need to attract participants; however, were they enforce strict guidelines such as those maintained in forensic competitions, many people simply wouldn't participate.

Of course, there is also the added challenges resulting from folks engaging on topics about which they know little or nothing, and bothering to gather no information that would alter their state of ignorance re: the topic at hand. That is exactly the state of children's awareness of the topics adults discuss and it's why they are sat at the kids' tables or admonished to be seen and not heard. Our only tool for abjuring the same in venues like USMB is the "ignore" feature. It's essentially the means by which individual members assign folks to the "kiddies' table." It's naturally not nearly as effective as the "kiddies' table" approach, but it's the best we can do.

Quantity over quality is a very strange way to approach conversation, no? Politicians are famous for using many words to say nothing. At least they do so for personal gain. Here the brainwashed advocate for their master's best interests without regard for their own. All they seek to do is yell at people. If there is an attempt to discuss Israeli/Palestinian issues, for example, it quickly devolves into a proxy war. There is no attempt to define problems and discuss possible solutions. There are merely people pretending to be Israel and people pretending to be Palestine, expressing their personal hatred for one another. Yawn.

You ban people from this subforum. That's how you establish the rules for real conversation. Zero tolerance for personal attacks. Zero tolerance for attempts to derail conversations. Moderators of debates or live public forums are tasked with keeping conversations on track. Requirement #1 is being able tor recognize the things which derail conversations. Requirement #2 is having the huevos to establish a zero-tolerance policy towards such behavior.

 

[320 Years of History]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

Well, from what I can tell, the Structured Debate Forum, or possibly the Bullring, may be the sub-forum areas that aim to be most nearly what you want. I imagine "what you want" is roughly akin to what in forensic debate is called "extemporaneous" speech. In extemp, a speaker, or here a writer, presents a well-organized and well-supported speech using current fact and opinion on a designated current event topic by using credible content from numerous sources.

In forensic competition, the quality of the debate is quite high, but then there are judges, and there are competitors who are interested in developing strong arguments and in adhering to the rules of civility as well as an underlying objective of debating with cognitive rigor. That is, they will make a thesis claim, provide factual evidence for it and "bring home" the argument with anecdotal warrants. (The following is excerpted from "Guide to Public Forum Debate.")

The quantity of arguments is less important than the quality of arguments, just as the quantity of evidence is less important than the quality of evidence. Thus we come to three important components of an argument: claim, evidence, and warrant.

A claim is a major argument made on either side of the resolution. On the resolution, “Resolved that NATO countries should have acted together in Iraq,” a claim could be that animosities would be reduced because one nation would not bear the brunt of the responsibility for the invasion. To prove this to be true, a debate must provide evidence, proving that the claim is valid. The debater chooses at least one type of evidence that will support the claim even when challenged. In the above example, much credible evidence exists that resistance is high because the United States for the most part acted alone.

Perhaps the most crucial component of argumentation is the warrant. Warrants connect the claim and its support, sometime obviously, sometime subtly. Warrants emerge from the total sum of our experiences and personal observations. Thus it is entirely possible that the debater and the judges have a different set of experiences.

The warrant for the claim used in the NATO example should connect the audience (judges) to the thesis, perhaps by making anecdotal comments about how everyone is much better satisfied when cooperation exists, whether among people or nations. On the other hand, the opposition can counter that forcing nations to cooperate with each other when that is not their wish alienates allies and ruins alliances. Turn the evidence against the debater and make the logical warrant that such a NATO policy for Iraq would have destroyed NATO, would have kept us operating in Iraq by ourselves, and would have destroyed the unity for future NATO missions.

Warrants provide believable reasons why a claim and evidence are true. That is why evidence without analysis can result in an assertion without substance and an argument lost. Arguments and evidence without warrants are seldom persuasive.​

So much of what is posted on USMB is poorly organized and therefore veers off topic, is offered with little to no credible support, and, in terms of the structure of an argument, consists of the warrant and/or some isolated and often childishly organized/emphasized set of (often unsubstantiated) facts that lack the strength of dialectical presentation. Indeed, quite often folks on USMB seem to be a of a mind that their opinion is somehow valid, because in their mind, "everyone is entitled to their opinion." Well, of course, everyone is not entitled to their opinion, which is precisely why kids are relegated to the "kiddies' table."

Unfortunately, a public forum such as USMB likely lacks the resources to exact the levels of control that judges and sponsors can in forensic competitions. One element of control has to do with who is permitted to participate in the debate, that is, the forum administration has an inherent need to attract participants; however, were they enforce strict guidelines such as those maintained in forensic competitions, many people simply wouldn't participate.

Of course, there is also the added challenges resulting from folks engaging on topics about which they know little or nothing, and bothering to gather no information that would alter their state of ignorance re: the topic at hand. That is exactly the state of children's awareness of the topics adults discuss and it's why they are sat at the kids' tables or admonished to be seen and not heard. Our only tool for abjuring the same in venues like USMB is the "ignore" feature. It's essentially the means by which individual members assign folks to the "kiddies' table." It's naturally not nearly as effective as the "kiddies' table" approach, but it's the best we can do.

Unfortunately, a public forum such as USMB likely lacks the resources to exact the levels of control that judges and sponsors can in forensic competitions. One element of control has to do with who is permitted to participate in the debate, that is, the forum administration has an inherent need to attract participants; however, were they enforce strict guidelines such as those maintained in forensic competitions, many people simply wouldn't participate.

Of course, there is also the added challenges resulting from folks engaging on topics about which they know little or nothing, and bothering to gather no information that would alter their state of ignorance re: the topic at hand. That is exactly the state of children's awareness of the topics adults discuss and it's why they are sat at the kids' tables or admonished to be seen and not heard. Our only tool for abjuring the same in venues like USMB is the "ignore" feature. It's essentially the means by which individual members assign folks to the "kiddies' table." It's naturally not nearly as effective as the "kiddies' table" approach, but it's the best we can do.

Quantity over quality is a very strange way to approach conversation, no? Politicians are famous for using many words to say nothing. At least they do so for personal gain. Here the brainwashed advocate for their master's best interests without regard for their own. All they seek to do is yell at people. If there is an attempt to discuss Israeli/Palestinian issues, for example, it quickly devolves into a proxy war. There is no attempt to define problems and discuss possible solutions. There are merely people pretending to be Israel and people pretending to be Palestine, expressing their personal hatred for one another. Yawn.

You ban people from this subforum. That's how you establish the rules for real conversation. Zero tolerance for personal attacks. Zero tolerance for attempts to derail conversations. Moderators of debates or live public forums are tasked with keeping conversations on track. Requirement #1 is being able tor recognize the things which derail conversations. Requirement #2 is having the huevos to establish a zero-tolerance policy towards such behavior.

???? Did you forget what you wanted to say? I see only other folks' quoted remarks.

 

[oldsoul]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

 

[Picaro]

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Well, what he wants is really a "Vapid Sophistry Forum", wherein he and 320 can post endless examples of the 'Joys of Circular Reasoning' without some sane person posting and pointing out they're verbally constipated and ridiculous.

 

[320 Years of History]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

 

[oldsoul]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

 

[Picaro]

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Oh, you just don't get it. Typical uppity prole ...

These guys are the vast intellects; their time is better spent pondering 'The Big Ideas N Stuff'. All the little people out there are supposed to do the actual work implementing their latest 'Deep Thoughts', and then spend their little free time left sitting quietly at their feet in the evenings, being awed by the constant pearls of wisdom and many profundities they pondered while you out doing your jobs and will generously share with you.

 

[320 Years of History]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Well, I do do something about it, and in a very direct way. I have sent my three kids to schools that taught them how to be informed and how to be critical thinkers. I require them to present rational arguments when discussing things with me. I've done the same for over a dozen disadvantaged kids whom I've mentored over the past 20+ years.

And yes, as goes my participation in the forum, I do challenge poorly developed lines of argument. Moreover, I have on multiple occasions entreated for well ordered and presented discussions on multiple topics. You'll find almost every one of those offers for rigorous thought and discussion in the Structured Debate Forum. You'll also find there's not been one person who presented a strong argument on those topics.

Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.
-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics​

 

[oldsoul]

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Well, I do do something about it, and in a very direct way. I have sent my three kids to schools that taught them how to be informed and how to be critical thinkers. I require them to present rational arguments when discussing things with me. I've done the same for over a dozen disadvantaged kids whom I've mentored over the past 20+ years.

And yes, as goes my participation in the forum, I do challenge poorly developed lines of argument. Moreover, I have on multiple occasions entreated for well ordered and presented discussions on multiple topics. You'll find almost every one of those offers for rigorous thought and discussion in the Structured Debate Forum. You'll also find there's not been one person who presented a strong argument on those topics.

Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.
-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics​

Well, good for you. I guess the rest of us unwashed are just not good enough for your graciousness then.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete.

I once had respect for you and your well thought out and researched arguments, this ends the respect. I cannot respect someone who is only doing good on a bet.